Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/William T. Riker (early life)
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "William T. Riker (early life)". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale This is entirely unnecessary. Thomas Riker, whether people here like it or not, was treated as a separate, named person after discovery by the Enterprise-D. All that is a note on his page pointing people to William T. Riker if they want to know about earlier life before separation, not a creation of another article. At the very least more time should have been given to discussion on this. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Discussion I can understand that the creation of the article went on a little fast. I can agree with giving it more time for discussion. How about you other on MA? -- Örlogskapten... Channel Open... 21:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :Obviously, I think the separate page is a good idea. It's a balanced approach to the two Riker issue. No information is lost or duplicated. Each Riker is treated as a complete individual with a link to their shared history. It doesn't presuppose one or the other as the original or even that one is the original. Maybe it was a little speedily done, but what's to be gained by deleting it? – Have Heresy, Will Challenge, Write StarFire209 23:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC) ::Not having three pages for two people. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :Actually, in a logical sense, there are three people. :Before the accident you have Riker-A. After the accident you have (Riker-B and not-Riker-B). :The truth is (Riker-A = Riker-B) or (Riker-A = not-Riker-B) or (Riker-A <> (Riker-B or not-Riker-B)) :There's not enough information to solve this, so it's best to treat them as three people even though they appear to be two. Hence, three pages. – Have Heresy, Will Challenge, Write StarFire209 00:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :::Mild Delete: It's an interesting idea, and yes post-Nervala William and Thomas both have the exact same backstory and should be treated as such. However, we should keep most of the information where people would look and could find it, at William T. Riker. We could gloss over the details and summarize a bit on Thomas's page (and link to William's) too (like "Thomas Riker was born as William Thomas Riker to Kyle and Betty C. in 2335" or something). I wonder how this would have been treated if Thomas Riker was made a cast member as was originally proposed.--Tim Thomason 01:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :Keep: It sounds like your primary objection is that people would have to click the link on the William Riker page in order to see his full history, rather than seeing it all displayed as a single page. Can the early history page be made as a subpage that automatically loads when the primary page loads? The two would then look like a single page when people view either Will's or Tom's page. As this is an unusual situation, perhaps an unusual solution is called for. – StarFire209 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :::We could "subst" or "templatize" the info on Rikers' pre-2361 life. However, people looking at the Thomas Riker page itself won't be looking for information on his years on Betazed or aboard the Pegasus or at the Academy or his relationship with his father. They would like Will's page for that info (Thomas's for his post 2361 "exile" and re-entering into Starfleet). If we follow that suggestion, then we create a small bit of redundancy across those two pages. Again, it's only a mild delete, as you are making a very interesting and valid point, and I'll change it (abstaining) if people "side against me."--Tim Thomason 01:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :I think it would be good to remind people looking at the Thomas Riker page that he was Will Riker for most of his life and didn't become "Tom" until he met his duplicate, 8 years after the accident. Fleshes him out. And even done a bit more speedily than expected, I think Commander's effort shouldn't go to waste. – StarFire209 02:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Delete. It is an interesting idea, but poor execution. A major change like this to a featured article should have had more than 8 minutes of discussion. Much more. Being bold is all good, but if this page is kept, I will be bringing up the Will Riker article for removal from featured status. -- Sulfur 17:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :::::Delete. "Production"-wise, William T. Riker is a main character, while Thomas Riker is a one-time guest character. We shouldn't rip apart a well-formed article because of that. "In-universe", we wouldn't expect an encyclopedia to have a separate article about that, either... we would expect the information to be in both places, or in one, with the other article referenceing the first one. -- Cid Highwind 19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::::::Delete. I agree with Sulfur and Cid. An interesting idea, but it just doesn't work. --From Andoria with Love 20:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :::::::Delete. I also agree with Sulfur and Cid. I think the article on Thomas should refer to the one on Will, stating that their experiences were the same until the transporter incident, since Thomas was only a guest star. 31dot 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :I'm not sure what the real objections are here. :*Is it that this contribution doesn't give Will Riker precedence over Thomas? William "Thomas" Riker was a complete person BEFORE his discovery by the crew of the Enterprise. His treatment by them after that point is a fact to be included in his story but shouldn't determine how this encyclopedia should treat him. It should treat him like a complete person. :*Is it the appearance of the William T. Riker page? "Ripping apart" is an unfair characterization. If the 'early life' page can be incorporated into the 'Will Riker' article so that the article looks the same as before, I don't see how that affects anything adversely. If it can't, then maybe there's an issue. But it seems rather hasty to want to delete the page or to threaten the article's featured status before even seeing how this could be resolved. :*Is it the speed at which this contribution was done? I agree creating the page was "boldly going", but it wasn't like there was no discussion at all going on. There probably should have been a lot more, but "insufficiently talking about it" seems a rather weak reason to delete a page. Perhaps the feature statement be changed ::from "This is a featured article. ..., we invite you '''to contribute.'"'' (emphasis mine) ::to "This is a featured article. ...,we invite you '''to talk about it.'"'' :– StarFire209 20:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::All of the above. Also, "invite you to contribute" does not equal "invite you to literally tear out massive portions of the article". --OuroborosCobra talk 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :Amazing! You read and incorrectly understood everything I just wrote in 5 seconds but you're not the only one. If you were paying attention, you would see that I didn't change the article, Orlogkapten did. But I see what the real problem is. NIH. :Are there any rational counterarguments? Or is "I don't like it" sufficient? :Is it unreasonable to ask the admins who have a bias on this to recuse themselves?from the decision on this? – StarFire209 20:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::Again with the accusations. I never accused YOU (Starfire) of changing the article. In fact, in my last post here, I never said WHO did it. My use of the word "you" in quotes was a direct quote of the template that you also quoted. I made NO accusation. As for the rest of my response, while including a number of possible solutions to single problems, you ALSO had a number of "it is this (insert problem here)", and that is what I was responding to with my "all of the above" statement. All of the problems you listed, you seemed to cover it quite well. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :I guess it was my turn to misunderstand. If you (and "you" applies to anyone who's worked through my points) are against ALL of them, it sounds like you want an unbalanced treatment favoring William over Thomas, you don't care if this page could done so the William Riker page is functionally and visually identical to the way it was before**, and that you're against the changes because you had no part in them but you wouldn't have said yes to them anyway. I can understand the not-invented-here attitude. I don't think it's valid but I understand it. ** This is what makes the least sense to me. You're against it even if you couldn't tell the difference. No one is saying it's technically impossible to do that. Other than Tim, no one even cares to find out if we could that. – StarFire209 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::::::::Delete. --Jörg 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :Another well-reasoned argument offering solid evidence and rational thinking.– StarFire209 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::Starfire, none of my reasons have to do with not doing it myself, none of them have to do with you or LtCmdr-Vulcan being the ones who made the edit, none of them have to do with my attitude. In fact, at this point you are the only one running their mouths with attitude. I'd appreciate it if you stopped doing that, stopped making false accusations, and at least TRIED to stay on the topic at hand. This goes along with at least TRYING to become part of this community, rather than sitting there throwing cheap shots at people who have spent years building it. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::: As much as I like to watch the OC vs. New Guy show, let's try to stay on topic. ::: I've never really been much a fan of seeing the same information spread across more than 1 page. However, if the page was to last (doesn't look like it, regardless of some of the points being made), the page as it exists currently doesn't even have the full pre-Nervala info. It just copied verbatim from "Will's" page in the pre-Enterprise section (with minor changes to the end). There's plenty more early information under the personal interests and relationships sections.--Tim Thomason 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC) :OFF-TOPIC. Cobra, I don't know what "false accusations" or "cheap shots" you mean. I tell you how things seem to me based on what people write or do. I may be wrong but when I get the same impression repeatedly, I'm disinclined to think so. Yes, I do like to write. Yes, I have an attitude. I'm not the only one here with an attitude. My attitude says give me facts and reason. It says don't give me dogma. It says I don't care how long someone's been here. He has the same obligation to justify his claims as I do. No one is "more equal." :ON-TOPIC. Thanks, Tim. Nothing like a few facts thrown into the mix. :ABSTAINING. The intent of the "William T. Riker (early life)" page was to neutrally present information common to both William and Thomas on both pages without redundancy. It now seems that doing so as a third page involves a technical challenge that might be solvable under different circumstances but would be too cumbersome and/or unacceptable, so I withdraw my objection to deleting the page. – StarFire209 23:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC) ::More than one of us have given you facts, have given you reasons, hell, I did so when creating this very discussion. If you want to ignore them, that is your problem, not ours, but that is where I get the "false accusation" thing, as you are continually accusing us of only opposing for personal reasons when we have repeatedly stated actual reasons. Please stop that, and please try to get along with people who have poured lots of energy into this site. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :As has been brought up above, information about the "pre-split Riker" is spread across the whole article - simply because that's the way character articles are written: not in just chronological order, but often jumping from topic to topic. This means that it would not just be a trivial "technical challenge" to split the article and re-include the content via template, it would at least mean that the whole article structure would need to be changed so that all events "pre-split" are separated from all events "post-split" - including, for example, the section talking about the relationship between Riker and Troi. Not a good idea at all, I think. It would also make editing the article a more complicated process than it has to be. :I agree 100%. That's the reason I withdrew my support for keeping the third page. --StarFire209 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::::As an aside - Re:"Is it unreasonable to ask the admins who have a bias on this to recuse themselves?from the decision on this?" :::::Yes, I think that would be very unreasonable, because it would imply that our bias, for reasons unknown, is worse than your bias. -- Cid Highwind 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :It '''is' worse because the person making the decision should not show bias, (i.e., advocate for one side or the other). At the very least, the decision maker has to appear to be fair.'' :A person advocating that the page be deleted is biased in that direction. :A person advocating that the page not be deleted is biased in the opposite direction. :I was advocating against Delete. '''I was supposed to be biased.' :''Cobra was advocating for Delete. He was supposed to be biased. :An admin advocating for Delete is biased. For a fair decision, that admin should not be the one making the decision. :In real world terms, would you expect a fair hearing if the judge was also the prosecutor? Would you expect a decent raise if your boss said you were already overpaid? Just because it's MA, doesn't mean the same principle don't apply. --StarFire209 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::::::The admin who deletes or keeps the page will decide based on what consensus, if any, is derived from this discussion. If there is no consensus (or at least an overwhelming majority -- like ten to one or something), then the article would be kept unless it is found to violate policy (I don't think this does). However, at present, we won't have to worry about that because, with your abstaining, consensus currently says to delete this page. That said, we don't need a third article on Riker's early life; since Will Riker is the regular character, just have the info on his page and link that info in Thomas Riker's page, noting that their experiences are the same, without stating who is the original and who is the duplicate. --From Andoria with Love 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::::::::Fortunately, an admin did not nominate this page for deletion, so I'm really not seeing where the above tangent fits in. With regards to this topic: a) Delete the page being discussed, b) all William T. Riker references go in the William T. Riker article, c) all Thomas Riker references go on the Thomas Riker page, and finally, all references to William T. Riker's early life stated to or by Thomas in only "Second Chances" or "Defiant" go in Thomas Riker's article, as well as William's article (where applicable, see "b" above). The redundancy would be minimal at best, far less than the chaos this appears to have created... --Alan del Beccio 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Admin Resolution * Deleted as per consensus above. -- Sulfur 12:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)